Outside Darwin’s Box

W. Clayton Brumby on Surviving Obsolete Science

In the May 2001 issue of Touchstone, Patrick Henry Reardon spoke eloquently
about “the Errors of Determinism.” While I agree with him that fate
does not somehow cause history to repeat itself, ignorance can do the job quite
nicely.

James Kushiner’s editorial in the same issue, “Baylor’s
Bastard Child,” chronicled Dr. William Dembski’s treatment at the
hands of Baylor University’s science department and administration. Dembski’s
application of information theory to the question of the origin and development
of life obviously does not sit well with doctrinaire Darwinists, and for good
reason. His dismissal, however, as the head of the Michael Polanyi Center was
a poignant reminder of Santayana’s oft-quoted maxim that those ignorant
of history are destined to repeat it.

An Eighteenth-Century Scourge

One of the great scourges of the eighteenth century was smallpox. By one estimate,
smallpox took the lives of 60 million people during the 1700s. It killed one
out of five of its victims, leaving others blind, sterile, or physically marred
for life. An odd consolation of survival, however, was that one could never
again get smallpox; survivors were immune to any future infection.

In the mid-1770s, as the story goes, a dairymaid told an English country doctor
named Edward Jenner that she would never get smallpox because she had had cowpox.
Cowpox is a related disease, infecting cattle but few humans. People who did
contract it, however, experienced something far milder than smallpox. The dairymaid’s
conviction was a known agrarian superstition at the time, but Jenner became
intrigued: Did the farmers know something the medical profession did not?

After careful research, he found that the dairy farmers were right: Being
infected by cowpox could indeed protect someone from smallpox. He then came
up with a vaccine (from vacca, Latin for cow) using cowpox. But when
he took his findings to his peers, the oddest thing happened: Instead of welcoming
his research as the life-saving discovery it was, they took vehement exception
to his work. They felt that, if nothing else, it was sacrilegious.

How could he even think that the disease of a common animal could be used
on human beings as a protection? When he tried to persuade them that he could
prove it scientifically, he was stonewalled. Further, he was lampooned in the
press—cartoons showed those receiving his inoculations turning into bovines.
The Royal Society (England’s equivalent to our National Academy of Sciences)
refused to publish his work.

Seeing that it was futile to fight the intellectual bigotry surrounding him,
he published his findings using his own funds. And, as they say, the rest is
history. Supposedly, within 18 months he vaccinated 12,000 people. The Royal
family, Napoleon’s soldiers, even Thomas Jefferson and his family eventually
received Jenner’s inoculations.

Jenner was fortunate. By publishing, he was able to circumvent the ignorance
and prejudice of his medical peers. Because of this, his findings were not held
captive; the word got out, and we all benefited. Going public is no guarantee
of success, however. In science, it can make you a hero, as it did in Jenner’s
case, or, as in the following instance, it can destroy your career.

A Nineteenth-Century Scourge

Fifty years after Jenner’s remarkable discovery, medical science gave
us one of its most tragic sons: a brilliant and passionate Hungarian obstetrician
named Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis.

In the mid-1840s, Ignaz Semmelweis was a promising young doctor and an assistant
professor on one of the two maternity wards at Vienna General Hospital. At that
time, hospitals were a dangerous place to give birth; a conservative estimate
is that one in eight mothers died. In May of 1846, for instance, the mortality
rate on Semmelweis’s ward alone reached 96 percent!

Because Vienna General was a teaching hospital, it was a common practice for
both doctors and students to do autopsies first thing in the morning on those
patients who had died the previous day. Following this, and without washing,
they would come into Semmelweis’s maternity ward to examine the women.

One of Semmelweis’s initial observations was that it was mainly the mothers
examined by the staff who had just come from the autopsies that contracted puerperal
fever (blood poisoning), the main cause of death on his ward. After a colleague
who had been doing the examinations fatally contracted the same type of infection
through an open scalpel wound, Semmelweis instituted the practice that all doctors
and students would wash after the autopsies and before examining live patients.

Immediately the medical staff protested, yet once instituted, this single requirement
resulted in a dramatic drop in the mortality rate. In June 1847, the mortality
rate on his ward dropped to 1 in 42. In July it fell even lower. Semmelweis’s
procedure virtually screamed for further investigation.

Following the initial institution of his antiseptic regimen, Semmelweis himself
played an unwitting role in the deaths of women patients he was trying so desperately
to protect. A woman admitted to his ward was assumed to be pregnant, but when
he examined her, he found instead that she was suffering from cervical cancer.
Following this exam, without thinking to wash, he then delivered five babies.
Within three weeks, all five mothers died of puerperal fever. Surmising that
he had been the cause of the infection, he immediately instituted a washing
requirement after each individual patient was examined. Protests erupted again.

Semmelweis’s Skeptical Peers

Semmelweis did find forward-thinking allies in two former professors, but their
defense of him and his findings proved futile. The doctors in Jenner’s
day had found it inconceivable that a common animal disease could be used to
protect human beings. Semmelweis’s medical peers found it inconceivable
that, simply by not washing, doctors themselves were the cause of so much death
and misery.

Instead of doing all they could to understand why his procedures resulted
in such a dramatic improvement in mortality, they complained loudly that the
constant washings were a nuisance. In spite of the fact that the mortality rate
continued to fall (eventually reaching a confirmed low of 1 in 79, or 1.27 percent),
Semmelweis was scorned and belittled.

In short order, due to the political maneuvering of a jealous and powerful
superior, Semmelweis was dismissed. His successor immediately did away with
the washing procedures with predictable results; the mortality rate soared to
the previous horrifying level. Did this make any difference? Sadly, it didn’t;
mothers just continued to die.

In frustration, Semmelweis returned to his native Budapest. Eventually, he obtained
the position of professor of obstetrics at the university hospital. This time
his antiseptic regimen achieved an even lower rate than it had in Vienna (1
in 117, or 0.85 percent). But again he faced the ignorance of his peers.

In 1861 his findings were finally published, but they were widely lampooned.
After years of trying to publicly defend his work, Semmelweis suffered a breakdown.
He ended up dying in a Viennese mental institution.

Shortsighted Science

Did Semmelweis’s peers have scientific justification for their sarcastic
dismissal of his work? Hardly. His findings simply did not fit their very limited
and naïve view of things. It was only after Louis Pasteur’s germ
theory of disease received wide acceptance that anyone recognized the brilliance
of Semmelweis’s insights. Likewise, it might take some time before science
comes to an appreciation of a William Dembski.

Dr. Dembski is a highly credentialed scholar who is not afraid to think “outside
the box” of naturalism or question its assumptions; he is on the leading
edge of scientific thought in the area of intelligent design. Like Jenner and
Semmelweis before him, he is on to something. Did Baylor’s faculty have
scientific justification for their dismissal of his work? Hardly.

Someone once asked Stephen Hawking what happened just before time began. His
response was to ask what was one mile north of the North Pole; the answer, of
course, is inexplicable to science. Adherents of naturalism don’t mind
questions like these because they are irrelevant. Who cares what happened before
time began? It is so long ago.

It must be unnerving, then, for a scientific materialist to be working on
the bull’s-eye of biology—the genome—and come to the realization
that there is nothing in its constituent chemical structures that can account
for the informational sequencing of the base pairs. As Robert Jastrow concluded
in God and the Astronomers:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the
story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he
is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock,
he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

After a grand voyage of nearly 150 years, Darwin’s ship of state has
encountered an iceberg called information theory and is lying dead in the water.
Darwinists are running around offering hot toddies and telling people to come
in out of the cold, that all is well. But the ship is seriously down at the
head and will soon slip beneath the waves of history, joining other scientific
miscues like geocentric theory (Earth-centered universe) and phlogiston (an
eighteenth-century attempt to explain why substances lost something while burning,
which turned out to invert the true nature of combustion).

On the other hand, after 2,000 years, the historical evidence for the physical
resurrection of Christ remains, from the standpoint of the best legal tests
anyway, incontrovertible. And today, men like Dembski are telling us that at
the heart of biology, a scientific discipline whose leading minds have been
known for their hostility to faith, there is incontrovertible evidence that
the origin and development of life cannot be attributed to unintelligent matter
and processes. We are, in fact, designed.

As Sir Francis Bacon once commented: A little science leads one away from
God, while a little more science brings one back again. Dembski and his colleagues
at the Discovery Institute have brought us to the threshold of a monumental
paradigm shift, one rivaling Copernicus or, in our own day, the fall of Communist
Eastern Europe.

But the churches are remarkably silent. In the early Church, the apostles and
their successors took direct and public aim at the gospel’s ideological
competitor: Gnosticism. Yet when it comes to neutralizing the Christian message,
naturalism makes Gnosticism look like a tea party. One wonders if Christians
are on the ship going down or on the boats rowing away.

W. Clayton Brumby graduated from Florida State
University with a Bachelor of Science in Speech Communication and a double minor
in History and Religion. He spent a number of years in youth ministry before
entering a sales career. He, his wife Elizabeth, and their four younger children
make their home in Sarasota, Florida, where they attend Church of the Redeemer
(Episcopal).

Much of the historical material was taken from Patrice Debre’s Louis
Pasteur (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), Louis-Ferdinand Celine’s
Mea Culpa, The Life and Work of Semmelweis (Howard Fertig, 1979), and
S. I. McMillen’s None of These Diseases (Pyramid, 1968).

Unhappy Fault:
Leon J. Podles on the Integration of Anger into the Virtuous Life

the 2017 conference

the 2016 conference

Audio

Purchase and download the conference talks

other fsj publications

Anno Domini 2018

The St. James Calendar of the Christian Year—only $14.95

The Daily Devotional Guide

by Patrick Henry Reardon

Touchstone is a Christian journal, conservative in doctrine and eclectic in content, with editors and readers from each of the three great divisions of Christendom—Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.

The mission of the journal and its publisher, The Fellowship of St. James, is to provide a place where Christians of various backgrounds can speak with one another on the basis of shared belief in the fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized in the ancient creeds of the Church.